Date: 15 Mar 2005 09:27:05 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Andreas Davour <ante@Update.UU.SE> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW or pf? Message-ID: <448y4p7znq.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0503141643590.9462@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE> References: <42326F4D.70008@daleco.biz> <200503120435.j2C4ZDr89213@fat_man.ascendency.net> <20050313112025.GI18080@alzatex.com> <20050314153532.GA825@Alex.lan> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0503141643590.9462@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andreas Davour <ante@Update.UU.SE> writes: > I have read the handbook about firewalls, and compiled my kernel > without switching on any explicit support for pf. > > Now, when I ran the mergemaster it suddenly found a lot of references > to pf in my startup scripts. The startup scripts support pf, but do not require it. > Is pf some kind of mandatory part of the base system these days? I > thought it was some kind of alternative to IPFW, but now I'm no longer > so sure. It is a part of the base system. It is always present just like ipfw, but its use is not required. > Can someone tell me if it's ok to just use IPFW on my STABLE system, > or is there some other knobs in the kernelconfig I should toggle to > turn off pf support? You are fine the way you are. I recommend letting mergemaster update the default pf startup files, so that it won't ask about them next time, but it doesn't really matter if you're not using pf.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?448y4p7znq.fsf>